4.6 Article

Evaluation of nickel-molybdenum-oxides as cathodes for hydrogen evolution by water electrolysis in acidic, alkaline, and neutral media

Journal

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
Volume 262, Issue -, Pages 115-123

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2018.01.007

Keywords

Hydrogen; Water electrolysis; Cathode; Molybdenum; Nickel; Metal oxides

Funding

  1. McGill University through the McGill Engineering Doctoral Award (MEDA) program
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hydrogen produced by electrolysis employing wind/hydro/solar electricity has been identified as a promising renewable and environmentally-friendly energy carrier. The current paper is a study on the investigation of electrocatalytic properties of Ni-Mo-oxides in the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) by water electrolysis in the acidic, alkaline, and neutral electrolytes. The Ni-Mo-oxides of several compositions were formed on a titanium substrate employing a thermal-decomposition method. The morphology of the obtained coatings was investigated by scanning electron microscopy, and their crystallinity by X-ray diffraction. Linear Tafel polarization and chronoamperometry were used to determine the extrinsic and intrinsic electrocatalytic activity of the coatings (cathodes) in the HER. The most extrinsically active coating was found to be Ni0.6Mo0.8-oxide (in all three electrolytes), while this coating showed the highest intrinsic activity only in the neutral electrolyte. In the acidic and alkaline electrolyte, the Ni0.8Mo0.2-oxide coating was found to be most intrinsically active. In the alkaline electrolyte, the Ni0.8Mo0.2-oxide cathode had twice the intrinsic electrocatalytic activity of the current state-of-the- art, pure nickel. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available